Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

And that's just a bit of sarcasm aimed at putting me down.

It's a good faith signpost towards people who might be able to answer your questions from a legal standpoint.

Harvey's interpretation of Art. 8 seems invalid to you and you seem to discount his specific comments about risk assessments and care plans. - I should think it's only an HR expert who could validate or reject your hypotheticals for you in a satisfactory matter.

And that's just a bit of sarcasm aimed at putting me down.

It's a valid point though.

Men in general are legally allowed to gamble, run up debt, smoke 40 a day, hang around outside schools at hometime, ogle the girls, drink alcohol to excess etc etc.

The argument made is that a man with disabilities must be facilitated to live his life as far as possible as freely as a man who does not have disabilities.

Men who do not have carers do all sorts of stuff that is legal but fucking stupid.

The argument on the thread is that if it's legal then it's on the table.

I suspect in reality though that's not the case. That everyone including the judge would draw the line somewhere.

What if he wants 3 women at a time and he wants to act out fantasies of sexual violence? That's not illegal.

The argument has been made that if it's legal and men can do it generally then a man who has carers should be facilitated to do it. End of story.

It's a story I find unconvincing when applied to the real world.

post I mean.

Why was my thread deleted Mumsnet? I questioned a certain jurists fitness as a judge. That sort of discussion takes place in civil society. If it is not allowed, we have a problem

I mean seriously- what is the progressive argument for women being orifices for sale, aside from some women are so desperate for cash we should all be prepared to be seen as a commodity if necessary? Maybe we should just all
Accept -'if in need sell access to our vaginas?

Are you planning to attend the Kings Chambers seminar?

Why not?

Gambling costs money.
Paying for sex costs money.
Both can be addictive and I assume get expensive.

It says the bloke has violent sexual fantasies. Some cater to this. I mean someone somewhere will need the money enough. If that was what was to be ordered in. Legal. 'consensual'. AOK?

Can everyone who thinks women are orifices to satisfy men (whatever their issues) just get in the bin. Could those women who aren't on the breadline, but who see fit to establish businesses providing women to men, just stop? Because we all suffer from being see as orifices to provide male satisfaction and society can do better by you than seeing you as an object for sale.

I doubt that any of these would pass a risk assessment and be included in a care plan.

Logically it should happen mamna. If a woman with the same issues as the man in the OP wants men brought in to fuck her then yes why not.

In practice i can't see that being seen as acceptable on a number of different levels.

Are you telling me that if a man in the situation of the one in the OP wanted to gamble constantly, smoke 40 a day and drink 6 litres of white lightening then as an man not in his position could do that, it seems reasonable to facilitate it?

Crikey.

Sigh @balloonsandboobies thanks I would imagine most people are aware of that.

Couple of articles. One on the situation in Holland:

dutchreview.com/culture/relationships/sex-care-in-the-netherlands-helping-the-disabled-find-intimacy/

Also, from 2010:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303273/Councils-pay-disabled-visit-prostitutes-lap-dancing-clubs.html

Thinking on this a little more, what if it were a female with SN, "a mental disorder' who were "sex mad"? I understand that hypersexuality can come with all sorts of disorders. Is sex her "human right" as much as a male's? or would procuring men for her to have sex with be problematic on one or more levels? Would her diminished ability to consent be considered, and if so why not the same for a male in the same position?

"In this society, the norm of masculinity is phallic aggression. Male sexuality is, by definition, intensely and rigidly phallic. A man's identity is located in his conception of himself as the possessor of a phallus; a man's worth is located in his pride in phallic identity. The main characteristic of phallic identity is that worth is entirely contingent on the possession of a phallus. Since men have no other criteria for worth, no other notion of identity, those who do not have phalluses are not recognized as fully human."

Andrea Dworkin

I asked earlier about smoking, gambling, drinking including to excess.

These things are all legal so should they be facilitated.

A man could want to pay for sex more than once a day. For example. That then would be facilitated in that? A man could after all do that for himself.

What about gambling? That's legal. A man could spend all day in the bookies. They do- I used to work on one. They get into debt. It's addictive. I can't imagine that sex when you want it gives you want less of a similar brain reward thing.

The thing is I think the perspective of many people would be that gambling is not good and not the same as paying for sex. But, on this thread many have argued that morality etc should not come into it, if it's legal it's legal end of story.

It isn't illegal for care workers to help someone with these things. You can light a cigarette for someone with no hands without fear or prison, or push a wheelchair down to the bookies, no problem.

This is the thing with people who need care, they aren't necessarily all nice and placid and without moral and common human foibles. And they aren't required to be to be eligible for care.

There are sex workers who are actively working with people with physical and intellectual disabilities as well as volunteers..Tuppy Owens founded Outsiders to help people with disabilities have a sexual life. This has been happening for years, back in the eighties I worked with clients who had this service provided, it was kept pretty quiet as the fear was the red top.press getting hold of the story and putting their own vile twist to it ...no staff objected , quite the opposite, and a radical feminist house leader was very pro it happening within safe boundaries .

I'm sure they already do exist in some private homes. They wouldn't advertise the fact though

I'm well aware as a social worker that there are many women who offer 'companionship' to vulnerable men in exchange for financial gain, be that cold hard cash or gifts/ accommodation/ living costs.

Whether we view it as abuse of vulnerable adults or not basically hinges on the power balance in the relationship and the vulnerable adult's capacity.

I note from the bit pasted by EmbarrassingAdmissions that it's the CCG that has brought it before the COP. That means the NHS rather than the local authority fund his care either under Continuing Healthcare or under S117 funding (or if he is detained under the mental health act, but the information seems to suggest he is living in supported living).